3 ms·

It doesn't really matter what happened 20 years ago. What matters is how we spend our money today. See: https://imgur.com/a/187i2CO https://imgur.com/a/187i2CO

It doesn't really matter what happened 20 years ago. What matters is how we spend our money today. See: https://imgur.com/a/187i2CO https://imgur.com/a/187i2CO From: https://www.lazard.com/media/gjyffoqd/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/gjyffoqd/lazards-lcoeplus-june-... The ARENH for French nuclear is now at €70/MWh. Horrifically expensive. The wholesale electricity costs in Germany and France are about equal. Germany has higher taxes on private consumers electricity to promote efficiency gains. > Exactly, private investors are all over short-term profitable ventures. They won't be all over something which requires multiple decades to become profitable. Which is an admission that nuclear power is only economical when you do bad math.

sofixa 2y ago
> See: https://imgur.com/a/187i2CO https://imgur.com/a/187i2CO Nuclear at $32 seems pretty cheap, and none of the + storage options come anywhere close. What am I missing? >>Which is an admission that nuclear power is only economical when you do bad math. That's like saying that any long term infrastructure is only possible with bad math...
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  The storage costs only kick in when they supply the grid. So for 4 hours of storage you have 20 hours of the pure renewable cost supplying the grid and charging the storage and 4 hours with storage filling in the gaps. That is also the marginal cost of nuclear power. What Hinkley Point C is expected to end up at after running for 35 years. So sometime 2065. Before that Hinkley Point C is costing the consumers ~$180/MWh which are energy crisis costs. > That's like saying that any long term infrastructure is only possible with bad math... Not at all. The difference with nuclear power is that we have viable alternatives which do not need bad math financing the subsidies to get built.

sofixa 2y ago

> See: https://imgur.com/a/187i2CO https://imgur.com/a/187i2CO Nuclear at $32 seems pretty cheap, and none of the + storage options come anywhere close. What am I missing? >>Which is an admission that nuclear power is only economical when you do bad math. That's like saying that any long term infrastructure is only possible with bad math...

ViewTrick1002 2y ago
The storage costs only kick in when they supply the grid. So for 4 hours of storage you have 20 hours of the pure renewable cost supplying the grid and charging the storage and 4 hours with storage filling in the gaps. That is also the marginal cost of nuclear power. What Hinkley Point C is expected to end up at after running for 35 years. So sometime 2065. Before that Hinkley Point C is costing the consumers ~$180/MWh which are energy crisis costs. > That's like saying that any long term infrastructure is only possible with bad math... Not at all. The difference with nuclear power is that we have viable alternatives which do not need bad math financing the subsidies to get built.